I never liked the term, Global War on Terror, or GWOT. I found that it failed singularly to identify the enemy, a fine but crucial point. Words have meaning. Like so many of the previous administration’s efforts, it was a game try but only a partial success. (“The Long War” was a much, much better choice.) But at least it identified a global war going on out there.
Now, we have this: we have Overseas Contingency Operations. OCO is, arguably what we have been doing for some time regardless of any major combat operations. The Navy and Marine Corps, for example, have been engaged in routine overseas contingency operations for some time now, centuries indeed.
The first step in solving a problem is to admit that you have one. If you don’t square up to the fact that you’re in a war, that some other entity is not only wishing harm on you and your interests but is actively pursuing the policy, you’re ceding the initiative. No amount of euphemizing will wish away the facts: we are at war. We didn’t ask for it, we didn’t start it. The previous administration might not have fought the war as well as they should have, but at least they fought it.
Rally ’round the flag, boys! The Long Contingency Operation is underway, and set your calendars back to 10 September. Where is Winston Churchill when we need him?
Quick Update… I see Uncle Jimbo has dumped on it too.
I saw on Fox News last night that White House folks are saying there isn’t a push to change the name, and that some adviser stepped out of line with telling the Pentagon this. They had the head of USMCR commenting about it. Can’t find a link on foxnews.com
There seems to be a policy with the current administration of “float ideas out in the press, gauge the reaction, and if there’s immediate flak pull back on it or issue a denial.”
Holder’s announcement on the AWB, the furor over arming the flight deck on commercial flights, the sudden change on making surplus spent brass available to the public, now this…seems like a standard TTP now.
First the new head of Homeland Security calls terrorist attacks “man caused disasters” and now this; you can’t tell me an administration as PR conscious as this one isn’t looking to change how people view the war.
Instead of GWOT or OCO, or LCO I was going to suggest going with something like Operation Vienna or Lepanto, Cyprus etc. Something with a nice historical ring to it.
I agree with Mule, the administration floats comment out to the public, and guages the reaction to see what will happen. The Clinton Administration did the same thing on occaision.
My thoughts, in no particular order:
SSG Jeff: officers are promoted by a centralized board up to 1-star. After that one is appointed to the rank by the POTUS, and confirmed to that rank by the Senate.
NATO isn’t a combatant command, but EUCOM and AFRICOM are – both are dependant on NATO. The NATO post is considered senior to combatant commands as it is older, has more infrastructure, and is a Coalition Command.
The Army spent the post-Vietnam decades selecting certain types of people for higher command (battalion and higher). The Shalikasvilis, Caseys, even Powells are no accident. Now that Iraq is winding down, and the administration looking at surrendering Afghanistan, the Army will experience a massive purge of its officer corps. Only the politically ruthless/competent will surive. Same as after Vietnam.
My two cents…
Dave O:
Actually all Flag Officers through the rank of Major General or Rear Admiral (Upper Half) are selected by central promotion boards; Lieutenant General/Vice Admiral, General/Admiral are nominate individually by the President. Except for service specific positions all LTG/RAdm GEN/ADM each service is expected to nominate one candidate whom is then recommended to the President by the SECDEF. All General Officers regardless of rank are nominated by the President and are confirmed “with and by” the advice and consent of the United States Senate.
The Supreme Allied Commander NATO is also the European Command Commander, although, EUCOM is the only Combatant Command to have a 4 Star Deputy Commander. General Ward, the current AFRICOM Commander was the Deputy at EUCOM. Normally the Deputy at EUCOM is of a different service than the Commander. We shall see, under General Jones it was an Air Force 4 Star; a USMC 4 Star was the Deputy for a period under Ralston (USAF 4 Star).
Regarding you assessment of the those who rose to the ranks after Vietnam, I think you are spot on, however, there is one difference between today and then; the General Officers sitting on the board who selected the One and Two Stars were willing not just to promote those who acted and looked like they did; today if one does not conform to the what sitting General Officer think GO should be you ain’t going to get selected; that is why Petraeus was brought in to Chair last years Army BG board, this is while he was the MNFI Commander.
Townie,
You’re right that there’s an MG board. Looking at the MG board, to be nominated for a second star is an indicator of the nominee belonging to the correct clique (in power) at time.
You’re correct about the dual hat for EUCOM and SACEUR.
I call it Boyle’s Law: your very best war-fighters ride a desk in TRADOC.
I nominate myself for the goof award for having posted a response to Townie’s post on LtColP’s post.
I don’t really think it matters what we choose to call this conflict. The bottom line is that our cowardly elected officials in congress (I refuse to call them “leadership”) declined to sign a declaration of war. No spine at all–even in the wake of 9-11. Since they didn’t do that we’ve been stuck with this ambiguous psuedo-war with no clearly defined endstate or objective.
Global War on Terror? What does that mean? Are we seriously supposed to defeat something as nebulous as “terrorism?” Come on. “The Long War” is even worse. We don’t need any stinkin’ objective or victory conditions… it’s a “long” war after all. We’ll just keep on fighting until one of us gets sick of it and goes home.
Bah. It’s attrition warfare all over again. The Vietnam generals might have recognized this had they not burned their COIN manuals years ago and refused to look back. After all, “Air Land Battle” is much simpler than counter insurgency. But I digress.
A declaration of war would have led to a clearly defined set of goals and objectives. Something the people could sink their collective teeth into, and so they could put their Vagisil away quit whining about an “exit strategy.”
At the very least a declaration of war would have given us the ability to mobilize and deal with this thing properly. Instead we’ve been distracted by any number of things ranging from an anemic stock market to Britney Spears’ shaved head. America’s not only spend this conflict “at the mall,” but the government hasn’t been focused either. The only two agencies that have been taking this thing seriously has been DoD and the CIA. Nobody else gives a shit. Department of State talks a good game, but that’s about it.
Sigh… I need a drink.
A post at “Daimnation!”:
“Now it’s OCO not GWOT”
Mark
Ottawa
I suggest they change the name to the Total War Against Terrorism. . .:)
Sir:
Good choice! “Total War Against Terrorism” certainly GOES DOWN better, ha ha ha…
Hmmmm…. I think Churchill would have called it the Wahabist Wars. Has I nice ring to it, and defines the enemy too.
As an aside, a Minnesota Marine is being awarded the Navy Cross today, for actions in the “Overseas Contingency Operation”.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/03/marine_navycross_032509w/
Semper Fi bro.
If Uncle Jimbo does not like it-that’s one vote in OCO’s favor.
Makes sense to me. Also has the virtue of being able to allow us to decide when its time to go home.